|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 8:59:21 GMT -4
ummm no but whatever lol that was the very definition of a close game lol That was not a close game, Toronto generated nothing for offence, neither team dominated the play so it was close there but Toronto’s offence had no life and once they did, it was too late. In the 3rd my wife goes "they're playing so well" I said no...watch this closely they're playing into Montreals game perfectly...they break out into 4 guys stacked on the blueline and if they even enter the zone they can't get to the middle of the ice so they either go cross ice or drop the play back but nothing ever gets to a point where they can actually create a play. Controlling possession means nothing if you are not generating scoring chances. By my count they had 2 chances in the 3rd before it was 3-0.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 9:03:43 GMT -4
Now is the time to re-tool. Campbell gives you 1 year of a cheap #1 goalie. Get a good backup for $3mil or so and you have a good tandem for under $5mil while you figure out the rest of your roster. After trading a lot of picks now they need to basically take 1-2 years and not do that. Going back to playing Boston and Tampa type teams in round 1 shouldn't be a reason to spend more of the future on this core. Take a step back and wait for the Robertsons and Sandins to come into their own a bit more. Let Boston and Tampa age a bit. I’m not sure they have the luxury of re-tooling though and waiting for teams to age. Nylander and Matthews have 3 years left, Marner and Tavares have 4. The contracts they signed these guys too (term was awful on every contract), if they try and wait teams out, they may run themselves out of time. They bring it all back and keep trading deep to surround a flawed core and they're not helping anything though. Especially with Rielly in decline. They've pissed away a lot of draft picks in the last 2.5 years. They re-tool and they can go all out in the final 2 years of some of those deals. Otherwise they're just patching 3rd line holes with rentals and praying the core eventually gets it together. I think they need a bit of a heart transplant vs some depth moved around. But maybe they're the 2010 Boston Bruins just needing 1 more heartbreaker...
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 1, 2021 9:09:39 GMT -4
I’m not sure they have the luxury of re-tooling though and waiting for teams to age. Nylander and Matthews have 3 years left, Marner and Tavares have 4. The contracts they signed these guys too (term was awful on every contract), if they try and wait teams out, they may run themselves out of time. They bring it all back and keep trading deep to surround a flawed core and they're not helping anything though. Especially with Rielly in decline. They've pissed away a lot of draft picks in the last 2.5 years. They re-tool and they can go all out in the final 2 years of some of those deals. Otherwise they're just patching 3rd line holes with rentals and praying the core eventually gets it together. I think they need a bit of a heart transplant vs some depth moved around. But maybe they're the 2010 Boston Bruins just needing 1 more heartbreaker... I don't think Dubas has any rope other than win now mode. I don't think he gets canned, but the heat is on him. Another 1st round exit or even worse missing the playoffs he is done in 2022. I'm wondering if Shanahan sticks his nose in a bit more this off season?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 9:16:02 GMT -4
They bring it all back and keep trading deep to surround a flawed core and they're not helping anything though. Especially with Rielly in decline. They've pissed away a lot of draft picks in the last 2.5 years. They re-tool and they can go all out in the final 2 years of some of those deals. Otherwise they're just patching 3rd line holes with rentals and praying the core eventually gets it together. I think they need a bit of a heart transplant vs some depth moved around. But maybe they're the 2010 Boston Bruins just needing 1 more heartbreaker... I don't think Dubas has any rope other than win now mode. I don't think he gets canned, but the heat is on him. Another 1st round exit or even worse missing the playoffs he is done in 2022. I'm wondering if Shanahan sticks his nose in a bit more this off season? Starting to get to a point where Shanahan is under the gun himself. 7 years now. 5 years removed from picking #1 overall. Hard to see how this improves over the next 2 years in the division they're in. David Shoalts absolutely nailed where the issue lies. Shanahan and Dubas are building a team in a fantasy land where the NHL doesn't throw the rule book away come game 83. You can build the most offensively dynamic team you want but if they don't play heavy and a style to not only fight through a teams defence but punish and disrupt it then you cant win come playoff time with a team built around slick wingers and goal scoring centers. You watch Colorado play and even with a lot of younger players they own the ice with how they play. They create even against teams built to shut them down.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 1, 2021 9:26:38 GMT -4
I don't think Dubas has any rope other than win now mode. I don't think he gets canned, but the heat is on him. Another 1st round exit or even worse missing the playoffs he is done in 2022. I'm wondering if Shanahan sticks his nose in a bit more this off season? Starting to get to a point where Shanahan is under the gun himself. 7 years now. 5 years removed from picking #1 overall. Hard to see how this improves over the next 2 years in the division they're in. David Shoalts absolutely nailed where the issue lies. Shanahan and Dubas are building a team in a fantasy land where the NHL doesn't throw the rule book away come game 83. You can build the most offensively dynamic team you want but if they don't play heavy and a style to not only fight through a teams defence but punish and disrupt it then you cant win come playoff time with a team built around slick wingers and goal scoring centers. You watch Colorado play and even with a lot of younger players they own the ice with how they play. They create even against teams built to shut them down. I agree with pretty much everything here. One edge Colorado has is, other than Rantanen, most of their best players are outproducing their contracts, mostly MacKinnon(6.5M), Makar(under 1M) plus Landeskog, Burakovsky etc I think in the coming years, Sakic will need to be more creative in finding quality depth as a bunch of guys get raises or leave.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Jun 1, 2021 9:37:06 GMT -4
To play devil's advocate here - If Tavares doesn't get hurt, they likely handle the Habs quickly, and could have certainly beat Winnipeg after that.
They had a very strong team this year, good offense and really make strides defensively as the year went on. I really don't think you can understate the loss of Tavares. Without him, the Habs were able to really focus on the Matthews line. The core guys will be back and with some tweaking again, will be strong again next year.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 9:49:51 GMT -4
To play devil's advocate here - If Tavares doesn't get hurt, they likely handle the Habs quickly, and could have certainly beat Winnipeg after that. They had a very strong team this year, good offense and really make strides defensively as the year went on. I really don't think you can understate the loss of Tavares. Without him, the Habs were able to really focus on the Matthews line. The core guys will be back and with some tweaking again, will be strong again next year. Tavares and Muzzin are a part of the heartbeat of that team. Not the same team without that depth. But still cant let them all off for that. Injuries happen this time of year. Completely mismanaging situations like Joe Thornton hurt the team as well. After the first few weeks he should have been rested here and there. But no he played every single game. As he continued bringing absolutely nothing in terms of a missing ingredient on the ice. Should not have been in the lineup the last 2 games. They went younger and got quicker and we put an anchor out there for 8-10 minutes per night. Having respected guys in the room is huge. But they need to be able to still do it on the ice. Spezza proved to be that perfect swiss army knife 4th liner vet who you can use at any position at any time in a jam and is respected around the league. Thornton was out there hoping everyone else could carry him for 4 rounds.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 1, 2021 10:28:15 GMT -4
That was not a close game, Toronto generated nothing for offence, neither team dominated the play so it was close there but Toronto’s offence had no life and once they did, it was too late. In the 3rd my wife goes "they're playing so well" I said no...watch this closely they're playing into Montreals game perfectly...they break out into 4 guys stacked on the blueline and if they even enter the zone they can't get to the middle of the ice so they either go cross ice or drop the play back but nothing ever gets to a point where they can actually create a play. Controlling possession means nothing if you are not generating scoring chances. By my count they had 2 chances in the 3rd before it was 3-0. can argue semantics all you want you werent alluding to the leafs falling behind by 2 and then piling 16 shots in the third only to finally surrender an empty netter when you suggested the Habs would win by 3+ lol Montreal didn't even try to score a goal in the third period..... anyways like i said ugly but effective hockey... wish it waqsn't but it is
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 1, 2021 10:30:40 GMT -4
To play devil's advocate here - If Tavares doesn't get hurt, they likely handle the Habs quickly, and could have certainly beat Winnipeg after that. They had a very strong team this year, good offense and really make strides defensively as the year went on. I really don't think you can understate the loss of Tavares. Without him, the Habs were able to really focus on the Matthews line. The core guys will be back and with some tweaking again, will be strong again next year. Tavares and Muzzin are a part of the heartbeat of that team. Not the same team without that depth. But still cant let them all off for that. Injuries happen this time of year. Completely mismanaging situations like Joe Thornton hurt the team as well. After the first few weeks he should have been rested here and there. But no he played every single game. As he continued bringing absolutely nothing in terms of a missing ingredient on the ice. Should not have been in the lineup the last 2 games. They went younger and got quicker and we put an anchor out there for 8-10 minutes per night. Having respected guys in the room is huge. But they need to be able to still do it on the ice. Spezza proved to be that perfect swiss army knife 4th liner vet who you can use at any position at any time in a jam and is respected around the league. Thornton was out there hoping everyone else could carry him for 4 rounds. Simmonds was also invisible for a guy that was brought in for the playoffs. As the pace picked up his lack of foot speed showed up even more.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 1, 2021 10:32:55 GMT -4
In the 3rd my wife goes "they're playing so well" I said no...watch this closely they're playing into Montreals game perfectly...they break out into 4 guys stacked on the blueline and if they even enter the zone they can't get to the middle of the ice so they either go cross ice or drop the play back but nothing ever gets to a point where they can actually create a play. Controlling possession means nothing if you are not generating scoring chances. By my count they had 2 chances in the 3rd before it was 3-0. can argue semantics all you want you werent alluding to the leafs falling behind by 2 and then piling 16 shots in the third only to finally surrender an empty netter when you suggested the Habs would win by 3+ lol Montreal didn't even try to score a goal in the third period..... anyways like i said ugly but effective hockey... wish it waqsn't but it is The Habs played it safe but they got 3 or 4 very good chances, Byron to Anderson on a 2 on 1 but it bounced on him, Armia had a partial break, They had a 3 on 2 with Caufield feeding Petry and Campbell just got a piece of it(could have been late 2nd though).
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 10:35:46 GMT -4
In the 3rd my wife goes "they're playing so well" I said no...watch this closely they're playing into Montreals game perfectly...they break out into 4 guys stacked on the blueline and if they even enter the zone they can't get to the middle of the ice so they either go cross ice or drop the play back but nothing ever gets to a point where they can actually create a play. Controlling possession means nothing if you are not generating scoring chances. By my count they had 2 chances in the 3rd before it was 3-0. can argue semantics all you want you werent alluding to the leafs falling behind by 2 and then piling 16 shots in the third only to finally surrender an empty netter when you suggested the Habs would win by 3+ lol Montreal didn't even try to score a goal in the third period..... anyways like i said ugly but effective hockey... wish it waqsn't but it is How is it semantics? I said they'd lose by 3+ or win a close game. They lose 3-1 and I commented how close I was. You said I wasnt close at all. Semantics is saying 3-1 isnt close to a 3+ goal difference lol
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 1, 2021 10:37:02 GMT -4
can argue semantics all you want you werent alluding to the leafs falling behind by 2 and then piling 16 shots in the third only to finally surrender an empty netter when you suggested the Habs would win by 3+ lol Montreal didn't even try to score a goal in the third period..... anyways like i said ugly but effective hockey... wish it waqsn't but it is The Habs played it safe but they got 3 or 4 very good chances, Byron to Anderson on a 2 on 1 but it bounced on him, Armia had a partial break, They had a 3 on 2 with Caufield feeding Petry and Campbell just got a piece of it(could have been late 2nd though). that was in the 2nd the Petry one The Leafs early third period PP was a nailbiter ..... i don't know what anyone else was watching that thought they didn't generate a couple glorious chances there... that makes it 2-1 and it's still more than anybody's game
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 1, 2021 10:37:53 GMT -4
can argue semantics all you want you werent alluding to the leafs falling behind by 2 and then piling 16 shots in the third only to finally surrender an empty netter when you suggested the Habs would win by 3+ lol Montreal didn't even try to score a goal in the third period..... anyways like i said ugly but effective hockey... wish it waqsn't but it is How is it semantics? I said they'd lose by 3+ or win a close game. They lose 3-1 and I commented how close I was. You said I wasnt close at all. Semantics is saying 3-1 isnt close to a 3+ goal difference lol i'm not gonna argue this lol you can win i don't care ....lol
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 10:40:28 GMT -4
The Habs played it safe but they got 3 or 4 very good chances, Byron to Anderson on a 2 on 1 but it bounced on him, Armia had a partial break, They had a 3 on 2 with Caufield feeding Petry and Campbell just got a piece of it(could have been late 2nd though). that was in the 2nd the Petry one The Leafs early third period PP was a nailbiter ..... i don't know what anyone else was watching that thought they didn't generate a couple glorious chances there... that makes it 2-1 and it's still more than anybody's game The 2nd PP had better chances then the first one I thought. At no point did any Leaf fan think they were scoring 2 goals once it was 2-0. Like you said...Montreal didn't even try and score. They didn't have to. Toronto played a simple game with zero penetration. Putting up shots means nothing if they're not scoring chances. Most Leaf shots were from the side or the point and usually with no traffic. Once it was 2-0 the series was over to the guys in Blue and White. 3-0 just cemented it. 3-1 was just a gift goal when the series had already been decided.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 1, 2021 10:41:11 GMT -4
How is it semantics? I said they'd lose by 3+ or win a close game. They lose 3-1 and I commented how close I was. You said I wasnt close at all. Semantics is saying 3-1 isnt close to a 3+ goal difference lol i'm not gonna argue this lol you can win i don't care ....lol #victory
|
|